« "Zero Days" | Main | The friends of "the moderates" are not through yet »

12 December 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The Twisted Genius


Israel doesn't have to do influence operations. They do operant conditioning. They buy and train our politicians once they're elected. The FBI knows this, but are stymied by DOJ or others in the Administration when they try to investigate this blatant activity. This has been so for at least the last several Administrations. The Saudis buy their influence as well.

The Russians see the entire population as a target for their "information confrontation" operations, including theirs. I think this stems from their Marxist days. I respect the Russian efforts as legitimate national activities. The Israelis and Saudis are despicable shits.

Babak Makkinejad

What, do you think, the United States has gained from her interactions with China since 1890?

I know that US has gained nothing since 1836 in her interaction with Japan.

I wonder if that also obtains for US interaction with China.

Babak Makkinejad

Actually, currency fluctuations is a major area of focus for international companies. It can make the difference between being profitable and being in the red.

Babak Makkinejad

I think the US Electorate loves Israel; they will subvert US's own laws and procedures for that unrequited love - Israelis think US to be decadent, they like Germany.

Dr. Puck

I know. I don't favor any moves to undermine the electoral result. Trump won his victory by about 80,000 votes in three states. Those are the votes that made the difference.



I brought to FBI executive level attention the obvious treasonable contacts between American political appointees and Israeli and AIPAC people. This was 30 plus years ago. they said they were powerless to recommend prosecution because the administration of the day would not allow it. This extended over administrations of both parties. pl



When you create conditions in which an entrepreneurial business man can do things cheaper he will always do that. Always. It is in their DNA as it is for us dumb grunts to sacrifice for others. The Clintons and their leftist NYC pals made it cheaper to go overseas. pl


If SST is suggesting that by reading and watching Zerohedge, Counterpunch, Sputnik, RT, etc, I am under Russian control or influence then that is utter nonsense.

If SST is suggesting that my rejection of sanctions against Russia by the EU (vassals of the US) is Russian influence on my mind then that is even more nonsense.

If SST is suggesting that the Russians tilted the election to Trump then what else can I say except: more nonsense.

SST has always seems rational but this one posting is delusional. It almost seems like someone else has written this one.



You need to pay attention as to who writes what on SST. I did not write this. pl


Whatever the objective, the bottom line is that the Russians (if it was, indeed, them) just handed America back to whom this country belongs and from whom it was almost stolen - the "deplorables". The working people. The ones who fight for it on the battlefield, who built it, and who love it more than Obama and his ilk ever will.
For that alone, Russia deserves an appreciation, and an offer of friendship.
Hopefully, Donald won't screw it up.

The Twisted Genius


Colonel Lang did not write this. I did. What I said was, "As many of you know, I am convinced that all this was the result of a well planned and executed information operation undertaken by the Russian government." I also said we don't know the objective or effectiveness of the operation. I suggest you reread what I wrote and reevaluate what you think I may be suggesting.

The Twisted Genius


You're giving the Russians way too much credit.


I concur that Russia likely attempted to skew the election towards Trump. However, I think they were secondary players and likely didn't expect Trump to be elected but were doing so in the hope that a close election would reduce Clinton's freedom to find more R2P opportunities not in line with Russian interests. And, perhaps a little bit of revenge for some of our efforts over the last decade or two.

The fact is that the primary information operations were not Russian but homegrown with virtually the entire country's newspapers and major media going apoplectic over the mere thought Trump could be elected.

On a related point, I ran across this interesting interview of Janine Widel by Radio Free Europe, ostensibly about Wikileaks. And it just begs one to look at her earlier writings. She is well known for "Shadow Elites" but perhaps more relevant is her older book about the disintegration of the Eastern Block: "Collision and Collusion: The Strange Case of Western Aid to Eastern Europe." Perhaps that explains a bit of the Russian motivation.

Trump repels me. I'm a facts oriented type and am somewhat skeptical of things that align with my beliefs. So much of what I believe is contingent and is assigned a probability. Confirmation bias is a powerful thing that requires diligence to mitigate.

Thus, Trump's approach just annoys the crap out of me. That said I read a Times article about how he approached interviewing candidates. It appears that most candidates were rather surprised at how much command he had of detail. It was rather apparent the reporter was surprised as well.

He may well turn out to be quite a good president. I certainly hope that's the case.

Larry Kart

"The Clintons and their leftist NYC pals made it cheaper to go overseas."

I'm not saying that the Clintons et al. had no influence over this process, but did they have more to do with it than the American business/manufacturing/finance communities as a whole (not all one entity, I know), and the relevant policy makers of the two-term Bush II administration, plus significant shifts in what consumers in the U.S. and around the world needed/wanted to consume and some failures on the part of U.S. manufacturers and their work forces to adjust to those changes.

mike allen

Thanks TTG, a good post.

Looks like Russia's RT is starting up a French language channel, just in time for the France's election this coming April. Will they back Fillon? or Le Pen?

Have not yet digested your links to Morgus and Weisburg articles yet. There is a lot there to think about.


kao, vaguely what I had in mind. Preferred to keep it vague. Somewhat avoiding to be reminded of one of my worst babbling experiences around here.

But there sure is a difference between some type of enforced 'ministry of truth' and whatever type of what looks like consent that doesn't on first sight need to be enforced... too lazy to think of a better way to put it.

US media and the war on Iraq?


LOL. It's not me who is giving Russians "too much credit". It's the Democrats and their MSM lackeys who are screeching day and night about how the Russians made Trump victory possible.
There can't be any more credit than that.



The whole "Putin meddled in the US election and got Trump elected" meme reminds me of this conversation I had a while ago with a dog owner - I'm exaggerating a bit:

Man: I have a serious complain. Your ugly Münsterländer has badly bitten my Rottweiler and now my beloved Rottweiler is bleeding.

Me: So you should educate your Rottweiler not trying to bite my Münsterländer or any other dog.

Man: That my Rottweiler tried to bite your Münsterländer is not the matter here. It's in the nature of Rottweilers to do such things but Münsterländers aren't supposed to bite back. That's so unfair.

I hope you get the point. The whole Russian GDP is hardly larger than the combined turnover of the US propaganda industry. The US propaganda machine meddles in other countries affairs, politics and elections routinely since many decades. From the CIA days of Operation Mockingbird to present days of dozens of more sophisticated "colour revolutions" or attempts to do so, some powers in the US political class seem to think they have a god given right to meddle in other countries affairs and disrupt the political process or turn over foreign governments in more bloody regime changes including hard military aggressions, which are all accompanied by information warfare operations. Up to Snowdens leaks one might have said the information warfare routinely employed by the US was a conspiracy theory, but since the Snowden docs were leaked it's fact.

US information warfare by spreading fake news is well known anyway, babies thrown out of incubators, the horse shoe plan and Iraqi WMD standing out as examples everybody knows. Some more recent examples of well designed preplanned US information warfare, sometimes used in combination with more bloody measures like murder and terror were what is called arab spring, attempts to undermine the credibility of the Russian presidential election 2012 and the bloody coup involving propaganda in combination with false flag terror in Ukraine.

So, and now the guys responsible for all this US information warfare complain of Russian meddling in US elections. And, of course, one my add to this joke, Putin installed lot's of Russian agents around Trump to guide him, like Mike Flynn, James Mattis, John F. Kelly and so on. Claims that Trump and his cabinet people are Putin's puppets couldn't be more ridiculous.

What really happened I would describe as a informational competition, which the Borg lost.

different clue

Former 11B,

I was going to leave that blogger a "you filthy Clintonite scum" type of reply, but I discovered I would have had to sign in through Facebook or Twitter or Google-email. And I don't do Facebook or Twitter or Google-email.



All that "Putin did it" log rolling does distract from Obamacare premiums, jobs, immigration, dead cops and the need to bail out the college professors and administrators students.



Malcolm Nance is unqualified to be heard on these subjects. pl


Most of more blatant examples that I can think of are wartime propaganda of various types, but less blatant ones are fairly common, I think: various kinds of taboos, things that you don't say in "polite" company, all manner of empty things that people say or don't say so as not to offend. It does correspond, in a sense, with the idea of "political correctness," although with broader applications.

One example that I can think of is the controversy over "history" in East Asia--between China, the Koreas, and Japan. Factually, there is rather little difference between all four versions (or three--the North Korean version does get loonier than others), but there are subtle differences in interpretations, choice of terminology, and so forth that, once added up, wind up painting very different pictures of the past. The real facts are complicated enough and not especially flattering to the people who became important during the recent past on all sides (e.g. my favorite example about Korean kamikaze pilots--inconvenient for Koreans--and that they were actually Korean nationalists--inconvenient for the Japanese--who had a very different idea of where Korea belonged in Asia--incomprehensible to both Koreans and Japanese today) that they are conveniently downplayed in favor of the "official" histories that focus on imposing the more modern sense of the "truth" on the past. So the parties involved fight over the truths, even if they might generally agree on the facts.

One has to think that this is, in various forms, very common. One does not need to be Hobsbawm to think that "official" histories, according to any and all sides, are semi-fictitious stories that justify their viewpoints, different "truths," if you will, that are enforced on their partisans.

The Twisted Genius


I appreciate your opinion and your admiration of Jefferey Carr's assessment. He's a pretty sharp cybersecurity consultant, but he's also part of the infosec industry that you say has their own agendas. I've never been part of that industry, but I've spent years rubbing elbows with them. I've also spent a decade in the thick of, and often at the forefront of, the USG cybersecurity, intelligence and info ops world across multiple IC and LE agencies. Before that, I spent several years in close contact with several Russian and East European cyberneticists and "online" contact with the emerging East European hacker scene over FIDONet. I've written viruses in Assembler. I'm telling you this so you and others know that I'm not pulling this stuff out of my ass.

Attribution is difficult to achieve, but far from impossible. You'll have to trust me when I say there are a lot more than two nation-state hacks. I've tracked several hackers down to the identification of the individuals involved and, in one instance, their connections to a foreign government. Usually you don't get that level of attribution. You do know the perpetrators by their actions and patterns over time, sometimes years. Or, as you mentioned, you observe them in the act. I've had a world spanning conversation with hackers while they committed a fairly impressive hack. All this normally involves multiple intelligence disciplines. I would be shocked, indeed horrified, if the result of some of this collection is ever made public. We will never see this stuff.

The evidence that is publicly available has not been thoroughly debunked as you claim. Carr and others have certainly offered reasonable alternate interpretations of some of the data. However, other infosec consultants have supported the conclusions reached by CrowdStrike, Mandiant and Fidelis. Your suggestion that the hacks never took place is only worthy of a full blown, tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. Do you think the DNC and Podesta planted the digital evidence themselves? As for Craig Murray’s claim that he knows who leaked the documents to Wikileaks, I take him at his word. How did DCLeaks and the entity known as Guccifer 2.0 get the documents? Why couldn’t Murray be a victim of the obfuscation, misdirection and manipulation that characterizes the hacker scene. Russian hacking groups have members throughout the world and Russian Intelligence certainly has assets throughout the world.

It’s my position that with all the questions, competing interpretations of available data, and history of Russian “information confrontation” operations, an in-depth Congressional investigation is needed. To dismiss and suppress all this as a hoax or distraction will only feed the conspiracy theories of the bitter left and leave unwarranted doubts about the legitimacy of the Trump Administration to fester among a significant portion of our population.


Intel agencies refuse to provide briefers for Russia hearing http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report-bret-baier/videos#p/86927/v/5248574876001 [~9 min.]

Sam Peralta


I agree with your point that we should have an in-depth investigation as to the methods and identity of the hackers. Wouldn't this best be done by those who understand computer networks and security instead of grandstanding politicians? Aren't the appropriate agencies chartered with securing national security information doing such an investigation anyway? Shouldn't this investigation be done discreetly?

Did anything come about from investigating the hacking and download of all federal employee information from the OPM databases? Are we poor on defense while good on offense? We clearly have been at the forefront of information operations as an offensive weapon for some decades.

Since you lived this underworld of geeks, are computer networks and databases connected to networks gonna be completely secure from prying keyboards?

I have to admit that I want more Wikileaks type organizations and the thousands of hackers who work hard to penetrate the increasing secrecy of the nefarious acts of our elites. These hackers and leakers do a great service by aiding in transparency. I applaud Snowden for confirming to the public that our governmental elites were blatantly lying that they were not engaged in mass surveillance. But the message is that Clapper can get away with perjury because he was doing it in the service of the Borg.

While there is much ink and vitriol spilled on the release of Podesta's and the DNC's emails, I think it was very helpful for the public to be able to read the private agendas of these people and the hypocrisy with which they operate. Where is the outrage at the actual contents of these emails?

The left & the elite media will be bitter no matter during Trump's presidency since they despise him. At the end of the day he deserves much credit in that he defeated the media & political establishment backed by big money and the candidate that epitomized the establishment with nothing but his wits. He did it by not playing by their rules. Of course this bitterness of the left is no different than the right who never accepted Obama. At the end of the day Trump may turn out to be just like Obama, in that the Borg will continue to rule. But...we don't know that yet! He could surprise us just as he did with the long hard fought political campaign.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad